Re: [TLS] TLS-OBC proposal

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D0621F8DF8 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.761
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.784, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HPF69R5C-neX for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaid.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4C421F8DF7 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1CA1F0081 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 556481F0078 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi29 with SMTP id 29so138581vxi.31 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.98.36 with SMTP id ef4mr507440vdb.211.1315433968750; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.27.68 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOicumMaktE1c0XptERCS1P+oM+Gm73d0TcEFKZWSOVpdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHfa2AMOeShxH_k5ZEB3DUVJAnOqvZmLMg5Yz8smtBDGkQsNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOicumMaktE1c0XptERCS1P+oM+Gm73d0TcEFKZWSOVpdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:19:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgdaTa6kKcs8CdY+mBn3p0n4b=jmpOob0qpj6R96Ta1aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS-OBC proposal
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:17:39 -0000

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> The main benefit of binding cookies to user certs rather than server
> certs is that cookie leakage is made much less harmful: leaked cookies
> would be useful for nothing more than traffic analysis provided that
> cookies bear no sensitive information in cleartext.  This is a very
> good thing.

I should add that binding in some server (site, really) identification
information is also important, as a hedge against the risk that a
client might reuse one of these self-signed certs with other servers!

Nico
--